alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019072EN.01003802.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/38

---

Action brought on 31 December 2018 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

(Case T-757/18)

(2019/C 72/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s contested decision of 9 August 2018 on the measures to certain Greek casinos SA.28973 — C 16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s contested decision of 9 August 2018 on the measures to certain Greek casinos SA.28973 — C 16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009)

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two alternative pleas in law to support that the contested decision infringed its procedural rights and therefore should be annulled.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the part of the contested decision in which the Commission examined whether the alleged state aid measure confers an ‘attractiveness advantage’ should be characterised as a decision not to raise objections adopted following the preliminary examination procedure. Therefore, the applicant claims that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure because there were serious doubts as to the existence of an attractiveness advantage financed through state resources. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the part of the contested decision in which the Commission examined whether the alleged state aid measure confers an ‘attractiveness advantage’ should be characterised as a decision not to raise objections adopted following the preliminary examination procedure. Therefore, the applicant claims that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure because there were serious doubts as to the existence of an attractiveness advantage financed through state resources.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission was in any case obliged to reopen the formal investigation procedure by virtue of judgment T-425/11. In fact, the applicant claims that the Commission was, in principle, obliged to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments before the adoption of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission was in any case obliged to reopen the formal investigation procedure by virtue of judgment T-425/11. In fact, the applicant claims that the Commission was, in principle, obliged to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments before the adoption of the contested decision.

---
EXHIBIT 32

                  Certification of Periodic Financial Report by
      the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Nuway Medical, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2006                             /s/ Dennis Calvert
                                               -----------------
                                               Dennis Calvert
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 15, 2006                             /s/ Dennis Calvert
                                               ------------------
                                               Dennis Calvert
                                               Interim Chief Financial Officer


                                       30
# C_2009082EN.01000602.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

(Case C-67/08) (1)

1

(Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Inheritance tax - National rules not allowing inheritance tax in respect of capital claims, paid by an heir in one Member State, to be credited against inheritance tax payable in another Member State where the owner of the assets was resident at the time of death - Double taxation - Restriction - None)

(2009/C 82/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margarete Block

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 56(1) and 58(1)(a) and (3) of the EC Treaty — National inheritance tax legislation — Double taxation resulting from the impossibility of crediting tax levied in another Member State against national tax where the inherited assets situated in that other Member State are in the form of a bank account

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which — as regards the assessment of inheritance tax payable by an heir who is resident in that Member State in respect of capital claims against a financial institution in another Member State — does not provide for inheritance tax paid in that other Member State to be credited against inheritance tax payable in the first Member State where the person whose estate is being administered was, at the time of death, resident in the first Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kim Gregory, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered September 18, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

On the morning of July 7, 1988, a housing police officer observed several people individually approach the defendant, engage him in brief conversation, and then walk away. After the last individual to approach the defendant had left, the officer noticed what appeared to be four vials of cocaine in the defendant’s hands. When the officer approached the defendant, he dropped the vials to the ground, but made no attempt to flee. After arresting the defendant and recovering the vials which had been dropped to the ground, the officer searched him and discovered 17 additional vials of cocaine in his pocket.

At the trial, the court, over objection, permitted the prosecution to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree for the express purpose of establishing that he possessed cocaine with intent to sell it in the instant case. On appeal, the defendant contends that the admission of this evidence constituted reversible error because the prior crime was too remote to be probative of whether he possessed cocaine with intent to sell it in July 1988. We agree.

Although evidence of uncharged crimes is generally admissible on the issue of a defendant’s intent *(see, People v Molineux,*168 NY 264, 293), here the prosecution failed to establish any relationship between the defendant’s possession of cocaine on April 29, 1986, which resulted in his plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree on December 17, 1986, and the single act of possession which gave rise to his arrest in the instant case more than two years *879later. Accordingly, the evidence of the defendant’s prior possession of cocaine was, at best, of minimal probative value on the issue of whether he possessed cocaine with intent to sell it on July 7, 1988, and should have been excluded in view of the potential for prejudice *(see, People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 241; *People v Jackson,*39 NY2d 64; *People v Heiss,*113 AD2d 953; *cf., People v Hill,*166 AD2d 663; *People v Green,*170 AD2d 530). Since proof of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, we cannot conclude that this error was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
January 2019

There were 8 surveillance inspections conducted at 7 different sites for a total of 40 

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures continued to decrease in response to the 

colder air temperatures. There were no cages confirmed this month. All of the sites 

with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were scheduled for monthly sampling.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

February 2018 55 0 20344

March 2018 35 0 20379

April 2018 35 0 20414

May 2018 35 0 20449

June 2018 50 0 20499

July 2018 50 0 20549

August 2018 50 0 20599

September 2018 40 0 20639

October 2018 40 0 20679

November 2018 40 0 20719

December 2018 45 0 20764

January 2019 40 0 20804
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Advancing Mobile Monitoring of Intraindividual Change in ADRD.                    

*Date:*                         February 22, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Joshua Jin-Hyouk Park, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg. Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-6208,                         *joshua.park4@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 15, 2023.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-28069 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the Nine Months
Ended September 30, 1997 and the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheet as of September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       48,136
<SECURITIES>                                 30,150
<RECEIVABLES>                                32,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1,761
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            110,944
<PP&E>                                       33,712
<DEPRECIATION>                               18,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              145,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        48,187
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        181
<OTHER-SE>                                   92,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                145,497
<SALES>                                      66,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            110,618
<CGS>                                         8,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                19,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                807
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               85
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              11,714
<INCOME-TAX>                                  6,628
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           5,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  5,086
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.27
        


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00505-CR

Zachary Everett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 04-162-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Zachary Everett seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for injury to a child.

The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Everett has no right of appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The certification also states that Everett waived the right of appeal. See

id.; Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also Blanco v. State, 18

S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Finally, we note that the notice of appeal was not timely

filed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519,

522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 15, 2006

Do Not Publish
2
**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA** 

______________________________ ) JANIS C. LATIMORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. 10-1231(EGS) ) MARIA SANTIAGO, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________)

**MEMORANDUM OPINION** On May 3, 2010 plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action in Superior Court alleging her employer made false accusations against her. On July 21, 2010, defendant removed the case to this Court, and on July 27, 2010 defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. Nos. 1, 3. On August 30, 2010, the court issued an order in accordance with Fox v. Strickland , 827 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Doc. No. 6. The order advised plaintiff that if she failed to respond to defendant’s motion the court could treat the motion as conceded and enter judgment in favor of defendant pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b). Rule 7(b) states, in relevant part, that if a memorandum of points and authorities is not filed, “the Court may treat the motion as conceded.” LCvR 7(b). Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Consequently, the court will deem the motion as conceded and**DISMISS** this action without prejudice to refiling. An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
**Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge**  **November 29, 2010**

2
### Served: November 8 , 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 8 th of November , 2012

Essential Air Service at

CORDOVA, GUSTAVUS, PETERSBURG,

WRA NGELL, AND YAKUTAT
, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 1998

- 4899

NOTICE OF EXTENSION

By Order 2 01 1

- 2

- 1 the Department selected Alaska Airlines, Inc. to provide EAS at Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat, Alask a, with Boeing 737 aircraft for $ 8,262,938 annually through April 30, 201 3

.

As the end of the current rate term was approaching, Order 2012

- 10

- 24 requested proposals at the

five communities

. However, o n November 8, 2012, we received a request from Alas ka Airlines for

an extension to January 8

.

We will grant th at request. Proposals at Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and

Yakutat are now due on J anuary 8 , 201 3

.

Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this d ocument is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 87836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27846]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration

ACTION: 30-Day notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval 
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information 
collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all 
interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide 
comments on the proposed collection of information.

DATES: Submit comments on or before January 18, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for this information 
collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this 
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection request by selecting ``Small Business 
Administration''; ``Currently Under Review,'' then select the ``Only 
Show ICR for Public Comment'' checkbox. This information collection can 
be identified by title and/or OMB Control Number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the 
information collection and supporting documents from the Agency 
Clearance Office at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcffc9cec8d5cf92eed5dfd4fccfdedd92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d695a3a4a2bfa5f884bfb5be96a5b4b7f8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>; (202) 205-7030, or from 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations and policy, 
the Small Business Development Centers (SBDC's) must submit with their 
proposal SBA Form 1224, Grant/Cooperative Agreement Cost Sharing 
Proposal, to SBA for verification of the recipient's share of the 
project cost.

Solicitation of Public Comments

    Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of 
information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its 
functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether 
there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of 
automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) 
whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information.
    OMB Control: 3245-0140.
    Title: ``SBA Form 1224, Grant/Cooperative Agreement Cost Sharing 
Proposal''.
    Description of Respondents: SBDC Directors.
    SBA Form Number: SBA Form 1224.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 168.
    Estimated Annual Responses: 168.
    Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 418.

Curtis Rich,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-27846 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>